POLICE COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19196, 12 March 1926, Page 4

POLICE COURT

FRIDAY, MARCH 12. (Before. Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) “A COWARDLY THING.” A youth was charged with damaging a pane of glass, valued at ss, the property of Young John. The Senior Sergeant said that the defendant had been throwing stones on a Chinaman’s house at St. Kilda. The defendant admitted that he had thrown stones on the roof, but denied that his companions had done so. “It was rather a cowardly thing throwing stones on a Chinaman's house, don’t yon think?” queried Air Bundle. The Defendant; “Yes, sir.” The Magistrate: “ It’s a pity that the Chinaman hadn’t given yon a hiding.” The Magistrate said that he would treat fho defendant as a juvenile. He would be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution and to make good the damage done. EXCUSE NOT ACCEPTED. William Alexander Justice, who was fined on Alaryli 5 last for having permitted to ho used an unregistered vehicle for the delivery of parcels, applied for a rehearing, which was granted. The defendant said that the machine was used for demonstrating _ purposes only. It. was a part of their private stock, and flic machine was advertising his business. The Alagistrnto : How could yon claim that the machine was being used for advertising your business when it was carrying parcels? The defendant claimed that the machine was used for advertising. lie. was fined 20s and costs. “SOME LAXITY.” Claude William Williams, inspector of factories, proceeded against the Dunedin and Otago Boot Company for failing to close their business premises at 5.30 p.m. on February 17. Air Hay appeared for the defendants, who pleaded guilty. The Inspector said that there had been several complaints about the shop being open after hours. Air Hay said that there had been some laxity in closing the shop. A fine of 20s and costs was imposed. MOTOR OFFENCES. Robert Frazer (Mr Hanlon) pleaded guilty to a. charge of having driven a motor car in a negligent manner. Senior-sergeant . Quartermain said flint the man had collided with a car near Tahuna Park. Air Hanlon said that the defendant wont out to Tahuna Parle and pulled up at the gate, but an express was in the way, and when lie turned round another' ear, travelling at twenty miles an hour, dashed ino him. The defendant was fined 20s and costs. Harold AClvor, the driver of the ear with which Eraser’s car had collided, was fined 20s (costs 7s) for driving without a license. Air Stevenson represented M’lvor, who admitted the offence.

George Dickson pleaded not guilty to a charge of having allowed his car to remain in Hope street without a light.

The defendant said that he left the car lighted, hut when he returned the switch was off.

He was convicted and discharged NO NUMBER ON CAR.

William Cnthbortson, for using a motor oar without having the assigned number and distinguishing marks affixed to the front, was fined costs (7s). His excuse was that he did not know the plate was off. Frank Switalli, similarly charged, was convicted. MOTORIST CONVICTED.

Frederick Denham, who had left a ear unattended on the Main South road, and who had failed to produce his license when required to do so, was convicted and ordered to pay costs (7s) on the first charge and fined costs (7s) on the second. Denham’s excuse was that ho was doing some business at Caversham, and had left his license at Balclutha. DISPOSAL NOT NOTIFIED. Frank Martin, for failing to notify the disposal of a motor vehicle, was fined lUs, with costs (7s). BICYCLE ON FOOTPATH. James Anderson, for riding his bicycle on a footpath at St. Kilda, was lined os, with costs (7s). QUESTION OF SOBRIETY. David Bussell Thompson was charged with having driven a motor car whilst in a stale of intoxication. Ho was represented by Mr H. E. Barrowclough, and pleaded not guilty. Leonard Claud Childs, a currier, said that about 2 a.in. on a recent Sunday ho was proceeding down Princes street. He noticed two men near Manor place, and offered to give them a lift. The men accepted the offer, but when one of them was nearing the truck a motor car “ flashed past,” . knocking him down. Witness considered that the defendant was drunk. There wore four men in the car, three of them being pretty drunk.” The injured man was taken to the hospital, the defendant offering to drive him there, but witness considered that he was too drunk to do so. To Mr Barrowclongh : The defendant was staggering about, and smelled of drink. Frank Alexander said that he was with the last witness when the accident took place.. He considered that the defendant was ‘‘halt-drunk.” James Stewart said that ho heard a crash outside the tramway sheds, and saw the injured man being brought in. Witness was of opinion that the defendant was drunk. One of Thompson's companions was sober. To Mr Barrowclongh: Ho noticed the defendant staggering about the street. Murray P.oter M‘Gregor_ said that the defendant at first denied driving the car, stating that one of his mates had done so. Later ho admitted that he had driven it. Witness was convinced that Thompson was drunk. J, Francis William King, brother-in-law of the injured man, said that Thompson had offered to pay all expenses in connection with the accident.

At this stage the Senior Sergeant stated that one of the constublos_ who was on the spot after tiic accident would say that the defendant was sober. Unfortunately lie bad only returned from Christchurch last night, and had not been warned to lie present. The injured man also objected to attend, stating that ho was satisfied with the arrangements made with the defendant.

The bearing was adjourned until the afternoon in order to allow both of them to put in an appearance. MOTOR DRIVER FINED.

Henry Charles Marshall pleaded not guilty to negligently driving a. motor car in King Edward street on the, afternoon of February 8. Mr W. G. Hay, for the defendant, pleaded not guilty. John Crawford, a' tramway motorman,, said that at 2 p.m. on the day in question his car was approaching St. Kilda from Cargill’s Corner. Near Macandrew road a motor van wa.s standing on the right-hand side looking south, ami when the tram approached to within a short distance of it tho van shot on to the rails and stopped there. Witness could not pull.up the tram in time, and the van was'pushed from four to six feet and tipped on its side. The van belonged to the Crystal Ice Company, and was going over to the company’s premises. Witness was cross-examined by Mr Hay. Ho said that with the magnetic brake the car could be pulled up in not less than 25 or 30 feet. Robert Foote, conductor of the tram, said the whole thing happened very

quickly. The tram was travelling at about ten miles an hour.

To Mr Hay: The usual pace in that block is ten miles an hour, Mr Hay: Oh. don’t come to the court and tell ns that. J stood for half an hour yesterday and watched the trains pass there. The Magistrate: Did you have a stop-watch, Mr Hay? .Mr Hay: 1 did not need one, sir. It was plain that the trams were going at much more than ten miles an hour. The witness finally said the usual pace there was about sixteen miles an hour. Mr Hay said that the defendant thought that he had plenty oi time to get across the street, but the tramcar came along at such a speed that it smashed into the van. Ho contended that the accident was not due to any carelessness on the part ril the defendant, but was attributable to the fact that the motonnan had not kept a proper look-out. The defendant said that it was untrue to say that he had “shot across the street.” as at the time of the accident the van was in low gear.

To the Senior-sergeant: Ho was facing the wrong way. Defendant admitted to the magistrate that he had not crossed at an intersection. Owing to the fact that the mirror was not very distinct, lie had not n very good view of the traffic to the left of the street.

The Magistrate said that defendant had gone to the wrong side to deliver his goods, and had to torn again to the correct side. A man in such a position should use extreme vigilance, particularly when his vehicle was one From which it was not easy to see traffic approaching from lieliind. The magistrate held that defendant had been negligent, in that he had not beep vigilant enough in observing what tralfic was coining before crossing over. Mr Bundle remarked that tram drivers were sometimes selfish in their use of the road. He pointed out that they had no more claim to the road than other drivers, apart from the fact that they were on a fixed course. That, however, did not apply to the present case, since he did not see that the had shown negligence. Defendant was fined 20s, with costs (11b).